Tuesday, March 12, 2019
The “Revolution” that’s not even a Little “Revolutionary”
It’s become quite common lately to read of younger demographic groups favoring socialism over capitalism. A recent opinion poll that really concerned me noted that one of these younger groups would prefer to “live under socialism.” Well ain’t that great. A bunch of compliant drones willing to serve the rest of us up to the hungry bureau kings. Where do these clueless clowns think their iPhones, skinny lattes, and abundant low cost food came from, the bureau of leisure pleasures and subsistence?
We can cut some of the less than erudite lemmings some slack because, after all, they are young. Youth usually comes around to saner appraisals of the human condition after it is no longer “youth.” The problem in this instance is that a significant structural bad move on a generation’s part can put us all firmly in the clutches of the Jacobin rabble and once that happens there is no turning back to bourgeoisie luxuries like...iPhones, lattes,...and food. People in Caracas are sorely wanting for coffee breaks...or electricity, or food and medicine. Amazing how the “guarantee of basic needs” for everyone can morph so quickly into the loss of fulfillment of needs for everyone (but the political party running the circus without bread).
On the surface it would seem like right wing hyperbole to suggest that the course American left wing Democrats are now on is in any way akin to the death march of revolution in contemporary Venezuela or elsewhere. In fact, it has become apparent that the only thing now separating America’s Democrat leadership and the socialist basket-cases of history is the amount of power at their disposal. Before 1789, the average French revolutionary seldom wore the public image of statist violence. Both Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez initially insisted that they were not communist and claimed to be seeking a relatively moderate path to democratic society. How things — predictably — change.
In appraising the psychological temperament of radicals, there is no doubt in my mind that the emerging crop of far-leftists in America’s Democrat party would be more than comfortable using the power of state as purveyor of official violence and repression once they were afforded the power to do so. There are now regularly cases where prominent spokespersons for the “progressive” cause suggest imprisonment for “crimes” like questioning global warming or expressing opposition to a massive influx of unvetted migrants. One can speculate as to just what percent of Democrats today would support executing the current president for _____ (choose your complaint of the day).
The current president and others have regularly noted Venezuela as a classic expression of socialism. While there are varieties of style in the collectivist cause, the socialist temperament and course of action is rather consistent.
The French Revolution is the ultimate template for the nonsense perennially erupting among a public acting as an irrational mass instead of on the considered actions of individuals. There were certainly similar events in human history before the great French example (e.g. Savonarola’s theocratic Florence) but revolutions after the French one of 1789 were marked by a consistency that is hard to ignore - in one way or another they are leftist revolutions. Even the Nazi example, in spite of extreme racism, militarism, and nationalism, was an attempt to construct a new economic and social order that served collectivist ends. Whether it be “the working class,” “the oppressed,” or the “German Volk Geist” (spirit of the German people), the self-described revolutionary despises the individual, free choice in one’s affairs, and the institutions that support individual freedom — capitalism, and constitutional republican government.
The “revolution” in Venezuela was/is a text-book case of “socialist revolution.” Venezuela is the current clear example of “revolutionary” nonsense in practice. In specifics it clearly follows the Cuban model but it is still closely aligned with the other revolutions that have occurred in the modern era.
The “revolution” begins with talk of wanting to help the downtrodden and “oppressed” by making “the rich pay their fair share.” The state begins to filter huge sums of money into their own coffers and the socialist bureaucracy. As their need and desire for more money expands, they begin a necessary increase in the tax burden on everyone and begin printing inflated currency to pay for their programs and corruptions. Eventually, sacrifices are demanded from the population and steady declines in living standards are blamed on the evil capitalists who seek to undermine “the revolution.” In the mean time — like the Democrats today — they begin a hard core assault on their opposition. Using the courts, bureaucracy, a contrived inflation of their voting blocks, and help from media and cultural venues (entertainment), they marginalize and eventually criminalize anyone who questions the nobility of their program. As the “revolution” progresses, the demanded allegiance and energy becomes completely devoted to “the revolution” and its leaders in spite of numerous practical failings. The means (“revolution”) becomes more important than the ends (a successful and prosperous lifestyle). The country can be spiraled down into hell and still the leaders (who by now have become full-blown tyrants) devote all the resources of state into preserving their authoritarian system. If they can (they usually do) enrich themselves in the process, they will do so. Hugo Chaves’s daughter is a billionaire from a country now devastated into absolute destitution.
The new clowns of the Democomm party in America fit perfectly into this very consistent historical pattern. One can listen to what any of them say daily, watch their statements and actions in committees, hear their rabid speech on news analysis programs, watch them assault people wearing the wrong hats, or screaming at people in public places.
At sometime during a leftist coup de'etat, the revolutionary — ultimately being pathological — begins to perceive everything through the psychological malady of projection. Anyone who doesn’t sign on to the program is seen as being “full of hate, “racist,” and “authoritarian.” To guide the meme along, every inept policy and action is painted as a defense in support of a conjured victim status. This then naturally requires an expanded list of victims which come to include almost everyone other than a well-defined enemy to play against — capitalism, the patriarchy, light-skinned people of European decent, or sometimes simply those who are, “full of hate.” ...On the “good side” — “the people.”
The sentiments now so aggressively supported by today’s Democrat are not about social welfare expenditures in Denmark and Sweden. They’re about the perennially revived urge to impose autocratic will upon a populous of sheep.
It should be apparent that even the common American leftist politician, once assuming enhanced authority, would DEFINITELY run gulags and mass-executions when their “revolutions” were along enough.
Not really all that “progressive” ...or “revolutionary.”
